What we are assuming is that ravens are black--which means that all nonblack things are ravens, by definition. The paradox seems to arise when you try and prove that assumption by observation--every black raven should then carry the same supportive weight as every orange carrot.
But "this raven is black" doesn't prove that all ravens are black either, which is I guess where I'm getting hung up. It proves "Some A's are B's" not "All A's are B's" (And the same for the carrot -- one orange carrot proves that some non-ravens are non-black.) They carry equal weight, but neither of them is evidence enough to prove "all ravens are black."
(Has the word "raven" lost all meaning for anyone else, or just me? Raven raven raven.)
But "this raven is black" doesn't prove that all ravens are black either
That's true. Boolean logic is actually rather limited in the things you can do with it. I mean, it's great for computer programming and math and what-not, but in the real world, NSM.
I've just realized two things: First, I think I went to high school with a "Raven", or possibly more than one. Second, I should've said ~q~p about a page and a half ago when I said ~p~q.
Nevermore.
Nethernore
(Probably nobody here but me is going to get that, and explaining it would make it the exact opposite of funny)
But "this raven is black" doesn't prove that all ravens are black either, which is I guess where I'm getting hung up
From what I gather it's the paradox inherent in trying to prove the assertion by compiling examples that support it. So you already know the answer.
First, I think I went to high school with a "Raven", or possibly more than one.
Were they black?
[link]
First, I think I went to high school with a "Raven",
One of my best friends (from high school no less) has primarily gone by his nickname "Raven" as long as I've known him.
He is most emphatically white.
